When will SpaceX actually begin to build the infrastructure for ITS launches and what form will it take? Is it possible for them to continue to use 39(a) for F9 and FH and at the same time modify it to also accommodate ITS launches (and landings?).

I personally think that they will build a brand-new launch site for it. LC-39A would require a complete redesign and rebuild of the flame trench, launch tower, and much of the site's infrastructure - it's really not practical. If they did choose to go with LC-39A it would be out of commission for perhaps more than a year.

Logged

"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

I personally think that they will build a brand-new launch site for it. LC-39A would require a complete redesign and rebuild of the flame trench, launch tower, and much of the site's infrastructure - it's really not practical. If they did choose to go with LC-39A it would be out of commission for perhaps more than a year.

Yet Elon said ITS launches from 39A.I'm skeptical too.In fact if the real ITS built is approximately the size of the one revealed, I think they need their launch & land platform a couple miles offshore for noise & safety. This of course makes rapid turn around much more difficult.

When will SpaceX actually begin to build the infrastructure for ITS launches and what form will it take? Is it possible for them to continue to use 39(a) for F9 and FH and at the same time modify it to also accommodate ITS launches (and landings?).

When will SpaceX actually begin to build the infrastructure for ITS launches and what form will it take? Is it possible for them to continue to use 39(a) for F9 and FH and at the same time modify it to also accommodate ITS launches (and landings?).

At least a decade

Why so far into the future? If design converges within this year, a first test launch of the booster might be possible in 4 to 5 years. Launch pad preparations should start much earlier.

This discussion is nominally predicated on modifying LC-39a. Far left field answer is resurrection of the apollo era LC-39 third pad location concept (original LC-39a, as the LC-39a we know today was going to be 39c until 39a wasn't built, but many people call the third pad 39c so...).

But an environmental assessment for a completely new pad there today would make people's eyes bleed.

There are at least half a dozen unused old LCs in CCAFS. For example, LC14 is unused and it is right beside SpaceX Landing Complex 1. So is SLC1.

So is 39B...

Isn't 39B beeing refurbished for SLS already?

Sure... 39B is NASA's pad for SLS... for as long as that rocket exists... with plans to fly someday...

Two ways this can go down... at 39BNASA and SpaceX agree to share 39B... and SpX mods or builds a platform for the pad and ITSMods pad to add LNG and their own other wiring and systems separate from NASA's stuff...Takes over an unused bay in the assy building... Does it NASA's way...OR...SLS project dies under it's financial weight... And SpaceX signs a lease to take over 39BThey then do 39B like they did 39A... Just with a bigger set of GSE and buildings...

Just my opinion on question you posed...

On edit...As I have opinioned elsewhere... I think SpaceX will build Texas as a dual use pad... F9/FH and early ITS type hardware...Later... Once the clock runs a few years... the above comment will come into play at the cape... for ITS type stuff39A building is too short on height (IMHO) to fit anything ITS in my opinion... looking at recent pics released.39A will be Manned missions with F9/FH for as long as that system is flying... primary purpose...40 will come back online as the Geo bird primary pad with single stick F9's...

In short... taking pads down for major mods will be avoided after this year...Again... just my opinion...

Later edit...Added SpaceX sourced pic that I believe indicates that 39A can't do ITS hardware... with it's current building.It was sized for FH, nothing bigger in stage diameter... in my opinion